US Gun Control Proposals (2 Viewers)

[Selador]

President Obama has announced a package of laws and executive orders to combat guns in America. Will it work?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/it-is-h...trol-measures-in-18-years-20130117-2cufc.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html

Proposed Congressional Actions
- Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
- Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
- Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
- Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
- Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
- Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
- Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
- Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
- Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
- Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
- Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
- Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

Executive actions
- Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
- Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
- Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
- Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
- Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
- Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
- Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
- Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
- Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
- Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
- Nominating an A.T.F. director.
- Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
- Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
- Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
- Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
- Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
- Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
- Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
- Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
- Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
- Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
- Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
- Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

 

[Alexis Texas]

MORE LIKE FREEDOM CONTROL



caps

 

[Obvious]

these truly are the end times

 

[Sunners]

There is a limit to freedom when it infringes on the freedoms of others. I only have a problem with freedom of others to own guns when they infringe on the freedoms of others to be safe on the streets. I'm not saying all gun owners are those mass-murdering psychos but the psychos have to be dealt with, and the NRA don't appear to want that. I don't care about more police officers, should there be stuff that numbers nowhere near existing police numbers cannot handle (1 police officer per school is about 120,000 in the USA)? I don't think so.

What on earth is wrong with:
- Background checks (Which inevitably will stop those psychos getting guns). If you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear
- Helping schools develop emergency response plans
- Banning armour piecing bullets
- Promoting responsible gun ownership (Now if only one of these gets answered, it is this one. Why not?)

I think nothing is. It isn't 1776 anymore, Britain acknowledge the US to be free and independent and has relinquished all claims. That was the only reason for it and that reason doesn't exist anymore. The US will be better off for it. It may not stop all gun crimes yet will significantly reduce shooting numbers from what they could otherwise have been.

 

[CaffeineMotor]

I can just see the cries of horror from 'some' of the Americans.

I'm a gun owner myself but who the hell in the public needs armour piercing rounds? There is no way that is even justifiable.
The reason Australia itself has minimal gun crime (from legal owners) is because we have background checks in place, we can't just walk into a store sign a small form and 30 minutes later you have a firearm. It took the Firearms Registry months before they even gave me my license.

If anyone cries this is taking away their freedom then you need a wake up call. Nobody is stopping you having a regular firearm but as America shows time and time again there is no place for semi/fully automatic firearms in the public.

 

[funkshen]

in before mass murderers in the making switch to shotguns instead of "assault" rifles

 

[MetalTheory]

I can just see the cries of horror from 'some' of the Americans.

But dude, think about the havoc America will go through if you take away armour-piercing rounds!

Video relevant.

 

[CaffeineMotor]

Ahahha yes I have seen this skit, sums up a lot of things very nicely

 

[Lolsmith]

Obama is worried about his legacy to posterity

so he shits all over the constitution

ok

 

[CaffeineMotor]

Obama is worried about his legacy to posterity

so he shits all over the constitution

ok

How does this shit on the constitution? It's doing some good to an extremely dysfunctional country. (well it's a start anyway) Yanks will still have their firearms, they're just losing the stuff they don't actually need aka 'AP rounds'.

 

[SnowFox]

FML.
They had Background checks already, 3 week min wait.
Y'all need help.

 

[Kiraken]

FML.
They had Background checks already, 3 week min wait.
Y'all need help.

Not for private sellers iirc

 

[wannaspoon]

love how people refer to the Australian gun buy back and speak wonders of it...

A- there is still a flood of illegal firearms on the market (there is quite literally a drive by shooting in Sydney every night)
B- people own more guns in Australia now than what the did before before port arthur...

heck, you can kill a guy with a fork if you really wanted too... lets ban forks while we are at it... might as well eat with out hands (wait you can kill people with them too...)

 

[SnowFox]

Not for private sellers iirc

Of course not, the same can happen here though, but the main arguement was for BG checks at gun shows.

 

[CaffeineMotor]

love how people refer to the Australian gun buy back and speak wonders of it...

A- there is still a flood of illegal firearms on the market (there is quite literally a drive by shooting in Sydney every night)
B- people own more guns in Australia now than what the did before before port arthur...

heck, you can kill a guy with a fork if you really wanted too... lets ban forks while we are at it... might as well eat with out hands (wait you can kill people with them too...)

I agree that there are a lot of problems with the buy back but mind you we've had virtually zero problems since.

Yes Australia at the moment has some of the largest gun ownership figures, but one of THE LOWEST gun crime rates. The gun crime that happens at the moment is as you said from the illegal firearms floating around the market.

The difference in your 'analogy' though is that forks aren't designed to kill, yes they can kill but it was not the intention to have them as a weapon.

 

[Lolsmith]

How does this shit on the constitution? It's doing some good to an extremely dysfunctional country. (well it's a start anyway) Yanks will still have their firearms, they're just losing the stuff they don't actually need aka 'AP rounds'.

Do you even understand the reason why the second amendment of the constitution is the right to bear arms? Do you think limiting this right will change a single thing (other than unfairly infringe upon law abiding citizens)? If you answered no to the latter, then you're deluding yourself. Like funkshen said, even if it is a sarcastic statement or not, the reality of the situation just means that Adam Lanza would have just needed to carry a duffel bag with him full of clips, or he could have used a weapon with smaller ammunition clips. Banning 'assault weapons', however vague that term is, is an undeniable limitation to the constitutional right to bear arms.

There are some things that Obama has put forward that I do agree with. I don't particularly mind that a greater level of checks and balances have been introduced. However, if I understand this correctly, even private sales of firearms will now (or eventually) need to undergo background checks in order to be processed legally. If this is the case, then there will be a definite rise in illegal firearms trade because private citizens at an auction don't have the inclination or means to conduct these tests. So Obama creates more crime where there wasn't any. Besides, Lanza didn't even own the gun he used. Plus, it was legally owned.

Who cares if people have armour piercing rounds? If people want to pay a stupid amount of money for a bullet, then why stop them?

I agree that there are a lot of problems with the buy back but mind you we've had virtually zero problems since.

Yes Australia at the moment has some of the largest gun ownership figures, but one of THE LOWEST gun crime rates. The gun crime that happens at the moment is as you said from the illegal firearms floating around the market.

What's your point? Switzerland has a high level of gun ownership and a low level of gun crime.

 

[wannaspoon]

I agree that there are a lot of problems with the buy back but mind you we've had virtually zero problems since.

Yes Australia at the moment has some of the largest gun ownership figures, but one of THE LOWEST gun crime rates. The gun crime that happens at the moment is as you said from the illegal firearms floating around the market.

The difference in your 'analogy' though is that forks aren't designed to kill, yes they can kill but it was not the intention to have them as a weapon.

that's just like saying there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 because of the fact that they: started 2 wars, deprived the liberties of millions and got rich doing it... we all know starting 2 wars and depriving the liberties of many would piss off many and would in no way work to prevent the occurrence of a terrorist attack...

mind you not a single gun was used during that 9/11 attacks... if what is reported about it is true... not trying to get all conspiracy theory here, just saying... don't need to have a gun to be capable of mass murder... you just need to have a few screws loose in the brain department

 

[Selador]

You misunderstand the main point of the 1996 Australian gun reforms (and the current proposals in America).

You can never stop murders of one or two people. They will always happen and a determined killer will use whatever means they can find.

The laws make mass murder far more difficult (ban on assault weapons, limits to size of ammo clips etc).

Try killing 35 people with a fork. I think you'd find it far easier with an semi automatic assault rifle.

love how people refer to the Australian gun buy back and speak wonders of it...

A- there is still a flood of illegal firearms on the market (there is quite literally a drive by shooting in Sydney every night)
B- people own more guns in Australia now than what the did before before port arthur...

heck, you can kill a guy with a fork if you really wanted too... lets ban forks while we are at it... might as well eat with out hands (wait you can kill people with them too...)

 

[CaffeineMotor]

Do you even understand the reason why the second amendment of the constitution is the right to bear arms? Do you think limiting this right will change a single thing (other than unfairly infringe upon law abiding citizens)? If you answered no to the latter, then you're deluding yourself. Like funkshen said, even if it is a sarcastic statement or not, the reality of the situation just means that Adam Lanza would have just needed to carry a duffel bag with him full of clips, or he could have used a weapon with smaller ammunition clips. Banning 'assault weapons', however vague that term is, is an undeniable limitation to the constitutional right to bear arms.

There are some things that Obama has put forward that I do agree with. I don't particularly mind that a greater level of checks and balances have been introduced. However, if I understand this correctly, even private sales of firearms will now (or eventually) need to undergo background checks in order to be processed legally. If this is the case, then there will be a definite rise in illegal firearms trade because private citizens at an auction don't have the inclination or means to conduct these tests. So Obama creates more crime where there wasn't any. Besides, Lanza didn't even own the gun he used. Plus, it was legally owned.

Who cares if people have armour piercing rounds? If people want to pay a stupid amount of money for a bullet, then why stop them?


What's your point? Switzerland has a high level of gun ownership and a low level of gun crime.

Mate I'm on your side, I'm a gun owner myself. I use Switzerland as an example all the time of showing that legal gun ownership does not equal more crime. Switzerland is very well regarded in terms of its gun laws and has had very very minor gun crime. No need to get pissy at me of course when gun laws come through they affect legal gun owners, that's bloody obvious. And it has been very well proven that when gun bans etc. come through crime skyrockets and as always the criminals do what they want.

My point is, is that why the hell does society need AP rounds? Sure we can bang on about freedom this and freedom that but what purpose does it actually serve? The WKUK video above makes a damn good point that there really is actually no need for them.

We already know that banning guns never solves the problem at hand, but here we have a society that is always had a vast amount of problems and needs some steps to rectify them. If anything its education and society that needs the reworking the most but some other things do have to happen.

 

[CaffeineMotor]

that's just like saying there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 because of the fact that they: started 2 wars, deprived the liberties of millions and got rich doing it... we all know starting 2 wars and depriving the liberties of many would piss off many and would in no way work to prevent the occurrence of a terrorist attack...

mind you not a single gun was used during that 9/11 attacks... if what is reported about it is true... not trying to get all conspiracy theory here, just saying... don't need to have a gun to be capable of mass murder... you just need to have a few screws loose in the brain department

I totally agree with you, lol of course no guns were used in 9/11 I think the world has established that quite nicely. A reworking of society will be the most beneficial of anything. Of course there are other ways of committing mass murder that's again pretty obvious. It's just interesting to note how a society such as Australia which limits gun ownership for either sport/hunting/rural pest control has been very well off with minimal problems.